Bill Frank's story about blackmail

[Mark A. Baker]

Very few students openly expressed disagreements to me. Not because I personally would send them to ethics or something, but I imagine because they had learned that it is counter-productive in a pro-Scn environment to disagree openly with Hubbard.

Plus I didn't go out of my way to *encourage* disagreement with Hubbard! Or to seek it out if someone privately disagreed, and it didn't come up in the normal course of a study period. Let sleeping dogs lie, and all that. I know Method 4 Word Clearing includes the idea that if you disagree with Hubbard you MUST have a misunderstood word, but that violates study basics whatever that particular silly HCOB says.

Paul

I took the approach that it was sufficient to understand what Hubbard apparently meant without necessarily agreeing as to its inherent truth. Rather like understanding the context of words which have multiple meanings. A word may easily have an alternate meaning to that which relates to the specific context in which it is encountered. The alternate meaning may be either partially or completely inappropriate to the encountered context.

Hubbard had specific ideas which as a process of standard training it was necessary to understand. Whether those were applicable to a given situation is something for me to assess. Of course, I was never in the SO either, so enforcement of 'command intention' or Hubbard's views was never an ongoing factor for me.


Mark A. Baker

[Infinite]

I took the approach that it was sufficient to understand what Hubbard apparently meant without necessarily agreeing as to its inherent truth. Rather like understanding the context of words which have multiple meanings. A word may easily have an alternate meaning to that which relates to the specific context in which it is encountered. The alternate meaning may be either partially or completely inappropriate to the encountered context.

Hubbard had specific ideas which as a process of standard training it was necessary to understand. Whether those were applicable to a given situation is something for me to assess. Of course, I was never in the SO either, so enforcement of 'command intention' or Hubbard's views was never an ongoing factor for me.


Mark A. Baker

So just dub in where the logic and truth are absent . . .

[Veda]

There's a recorded lecture from around 1961 or so where Hubbard explains that the reason for questions, about himself (such as, "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L.Ron Hubbard?"), on Security Checks, is that the person will not get gains if he has "overts" (thus "unkind thoughts") on the "source of the subject." This recording was recently linked on ESMB by someone. It's a classic example of the rationalization behind the use of Sec Checking to make "round ball bearings," which is the term used by John McMaster (in a 1985 interview) where he recounts Hubbard's description, privately to him, of what Hubbard was doing with the "Standard Tech" of the 1960s.

Scientology is a "package deal." If you disassemble the package, and remove only a few pieces of its contents and discard the rest, it's not Scientology anymore.

A person can be an auditor without being being a Scientologist. This, itself, can be a confusing statement to Scientologists, as most Scientologists see Scientology as existing primarily to help people (make Clears and OTs and save Mankind, etc.), and have never peeked behind the Scientological curtain.

Scientology has a long history of using deceptive lead-ins, by displaying or demonstrating a small piece of Scientology to someone, then getting the person's agreement and approval, and then moving the person along to another small piece of Scientology, with each piece being represented as "Scientology." This, while the totality of the doctrine of Scientology - and reasonable conclusions that might be reached from an examination of that totality - is carefully kept from the person.

Incidentally, Security Checking, as I recall, was originally presented as being done for security, not for the benefit of the person, thus, Security Checking. Then - rather quickly - it became something that would ensure case again or prevent lack of case gain, then it became bad PR for a while (and was "cancelled" ), and then resurfaced with the name "Integrity Processing" with Scientology registrars hard-selling it to public as a great new action, then (January 1977) the name Integrity Processing was dropped and the name Security Checking again used.

There were, no doubt, glowingly happy "round ball bearings," in the Scientology machine (when the machine was puttering along busily in the "old days"), that resulted from Security Checking, and no one - that I ever ran into in Scientology - regarded it as either thought-policing or (See Robert J. Lifton) "Demand for purity (in a totalist cult)," or as a means of collecting "blackmail."

But even without Secuity Checking, the tech "datum" of "critical = overts"/"leaving = overts" would have accomplished much the same.

[Infinite]

There's a recorded lecture from around 1961 or so where Hubbard explains that the reason for questions, about himself (such as, "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L.Ron Hubbard?"), on Security Checks, is that the person will not get gains if he has "overts" (thus "unkind thoughts") on the "source of the subject." This recording was recently linked on ESMB by someone. It's a classic example of the rationalization behind the use of Sec Checking to make "round ball bearings," which is the term used by John McMaster (in a 1985 interview) where he recounts Hubbard's description, privately to him, of what Hubbard was doing with the "Standard Tech" of the 1960s . . . <snip for brevity> . . . There were, no doubt, glowingly happy "round ball bearings," in the Scientology machine (when the machine was puttering along busily in the "old days"), that resulted from Security Checking, and no one - that I ever ran into in Scientology - regarded it as either thought-policing or (See Robert J. Lifton) "Demand for purity (in a totalist cult)," or as a means of collecting "blackmail."

But even without Secuity Checking, the tech "datum" of "critical = overts"/"leaving = overts" would have accomplished much the same.

Aaaah!! Thanks Veda. I now fully understand what Mystic was saying in the comment:

Yes, blackmail. The tech is blackmail. The admin is blackmail. The lectures are blackmail. The books are blackmail. All spiritual blackmail.

WHICH WAS PART OF THE MACHINATION IN CONSTRUCTING l. ron hubbard IN THE FIRST PLACE. SPIRITUAL BLACKMAIL.

I was puzzling and wondering if I was mssing a joke or some such . . . turns Mystic was just speaking plain fact. All of Scientology, jointly or the several bits of tech taken individually, is blackmail of one sort or the other.

[Mark A. Baker]

So just dub in where the logic and truth are absent . . .

Uh, noooo. That's not what 'dub in' is. Your own fundamental ignorance of scientology is showing. Lurk moar.


Mark A. Baker

[Infinite]

Uh, noooo. That's not what 'dub in' is. Your own fundamental ignorance of scientology is showing. Lurk moar.


Mark A. Baker

Your ignorance of wog world is showing. Out here, "dub in" means to self-create meaning where there is none. Ironically, even though they don't know it, Scientologists are experts at this. And ad homs.

[Lurker5]

This may amuse some of you: The first few times I came across the term 'r-factor' here, I didn't look it up and guessed at its meaning from context. (I was never a Scientologist.) It seemed pretty clear to me from the context that it meant 'lie'.

This may be more accurate than its "official" definition!

Ya did better than me . Sometimes I read threads and have no idea what the heck everyone is talking about. I try to pick it up by content. I HATE looking up scno terms - ick . . .

[me myself & i]

snip for brevity...."A word may easily have an alternate meaning to that which relates to the specific context in which it is encountered. The alternate meaning may be either partially or completely inappropriate to the encountered context."
Mark A. Baker

Mark, can you provide an IRL illustration of what you mean regarding what you have written above? Using wog-world-words or experiences for examples?

It seems to me what you are saying results in zero accountability on the part of the author/doctrine and 100% responsibility on the part of the student. Being a caveat-emptor of the religious variety. So to speak.

[HelluvaHoax!]

I am assuming this is a straight post rather than a Hoax post. I think you used to put all the Hoax posts in a different coloured font, but you don't seem to be doing that now.

The entire theory of O/W is not that at all. It is that when a person transgresses against *his own* moral code(s) [i.e., one(s) that he has subscribed to], he will build up charge on the transgression(s). And when such transgressions are isolated and the charge relieved, he will feel better and hopefully become more responsible [i.e. caring and causative] in the area of the transgression in the future.

Violating moral codes that he has *not* subscribed to are "non-reading items" and should not be taken up, if one is doing this for the person's benefit.

"Transgressions" against some ideal are not part of the basic theory of O/W, only transgressions against the individual's own moral code(s). Famous example: if you're trying to get charge off a prison inmate you're somehow doing a confessional on (for *his* benefit), a question like "Have you ever failed to steal something you could have when there was little chance of being caught?" is much more likely to be successful than "Have you ever stolen anything?" Why? Because "stealing something" is *not* necessarily against the criminal's moral code, but "failing to steal something you should have" could well be.

-----

Of course, this is all violated hugely in current CofS usage. CofS sec-checking in the past couple of decades seems to revolve around control and money, and have very little to do with benefitting the pc.

Paul
Ex-Sec Checker School Sup New World Corps

Really? That's what O/W theory was about? I really "missed" that (on Ron).

The only nitpicking thing I can find wrong with your lecture explaining to me what O/W's are is that at the very beginning you forgot to ask: "WHAT'S THE DATE?" :D

Seriously, having supervised the SHSBC (like yourself) for years as well as C/S it and audited countless hours....I am very aware of what Ron Hubbard says.

I am no longer concerned with what Ron said.

I am quite interested, however, in what he did and what he got others to believe.

O/W tech is one thing at the front end.

Something else entirely once you are in Scientology and it becomes exponentially more apparent what O/W tech is as you move up to the "higher levels".

Kinda like being on a road trip and luckily spotting a budget motel that advertises cheap rooms and free electricity.

Once you are in there and it's too late, you get strapped into an electric chair and zapped.

Technically their claims about free electricity were 100% truthful.

[Mystic]

Uh, noooo. That's not what 'dub in' is. Your own fundamental ignorance of scientology is showing. Lurk moar.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, of course. "Dub" is a term native to hubbard spew only, yeah, sure.

Ignorance of "scientology" is to be applauded.